Law

Law and order is important for the survival and existence of the society.  In the world of commerce, it is essential for every businessman to have a knowledge of the laws that govern their business. There are many disputes and cases filed in court that could have been avoided in the first place if the parties only have a clear grasp of the law. Knowledge and awareness about business law is useful in every persons daily living because entering into contracts and making transactions has been a way of life for everybody.

In the legal parlance, contract is considered as the meeting of the minds or the agreement of the parties wherein an offer is made and accepted ( Lectric Law Library n.d.).  There are certain important elements of the contract such as the consent, subject matter and consideration. Another significant element for its validity is the acceptance. Therefore, a contract will only be perfected if there is a valid offer and acceptance from the contracting parties. An offer is deemed as a promise that if accepted, will constitute as a valid and binding agreement. It will only be considered effective if it is communicated and accepted by the parties. Acceptance is the final expression of agreement to the terms laid out by the offeror and for it to take effect, it must be communicated in a clear manner.

In the problem given, the key elements of the contract will come into play in ascertaining who among Britney, Amy and Mohammed has a perfected contract of sale with Cheryl. There are many forms of contract but the problem presented deals with an issue regarding who among the parties has a perfected contract of sale with the vendor. It is therefore proper to give the definition of a contract of sale. It is a formal contract whereby one party which is the seller, agrees to sell something and another party which is the buyer, agrees to buy the object of the sale under certain terms and conditions agreed upon by both parties (Business Dictionary 2009).

Is there a perfected contract of sale between Cheryl and Britney

There is a valid contract between Cheryl and Britney.
The English law provides that the two main ingredients of a legally binding agreement are the intention to create a legal obligation and the agreement proper or the offer and acceptance (Rush and Ottley 2006). All of these key ingredients are present in the situation of Cheryl and Britney. There is a clear manifestation of the intent to create a legal obligation. The first meeting between Cheryl and Britney signifies the interest of the parties to enter into a contract of sale even though no agreement was perfected because there was no meeting of the minds yet. Britney said that she would think the offer through and would let Cheryl know during the following week whether or not she would be willing to buy the said minibuses. When Britney talked to Cheryl the following week, Britney communicated her acceptance of Cheryls offer by speaking to her directly. This act of acceptance of the offer between the two parties validates the contract of sale. All the elements for the validity of the contract are present the subject matter of the contract which is the black Ford Transit minibuses are agreed upon and both the vendor and the vendee are amenable to the price of 15,000. There was also a communicated acceptance of the offer.

Is there a perfected contract of sale between Cheryl and Amy

There is no valid contract between Cheryl and Amy.
In order for a contract to be valid, the terms of the offer must be clearly communicated by both parties to each other and absent this important element, there can be no perfected contract. The law did not specify the mode of communication that the parties must undertake. What the law emphasized is importance of receiving the acceptance properly. For as long as the parties relayed the offer and acceptance to each other in a manner easily understood by all, there is a valid offer and acceptance. However, the party accepting the offer must do so unconditionally. He cannot be allowed to accept some but reject the other part of the contract and he cannot add new conditions. If for some reason he tries to change this, the court will rule that no agreement has been reached because amending the terms of the contract and partial acceptance is tantamount to making a new offer which the other party can either accept or reject. This new offer is said to be a counteroffer (Rush and Ottley 2006).

In the case of Hyde v Wrench (1840), the defendant offered to sell his farm to another person for the amount of 1000. The agent of the vendee submitted an offer of 950 which the defendant agreed to consider. After several days, the claimant then wrote a letter to the defendant saying that he want to pay the full price of 1000 but by this time, defendant had already decided not to sell. The claimant contended that their agreement was legally binding because of his acceptance of the original offer. The court ruled in favor of the defendant and held that the claimant made a counteroffer of 950 and this offer in effect, destroyed the original one. Since the offer was no longer existing, its acceptance is not legally possible and as such, the defendant cannot be forced to sell the farm.

This landmark case in contract illustrates the so-called  mirror image rule  that states that a person accepting an offer must accept it exactly the way it is without any modifications whatsoever. However, the case of Stevenson v. McLean (1880) provides that a mere request for information do not constitute as a counteroffer.

The above jurisprudence can be applied in the case at bar between the situation of Cheryl and Amy. When Amy said that she will only buy the minibuses only if they are re-sprayed white is a counteroffer, not of the price but of the subject matter of the contract of sale and as such, this counter offer destroyed the original offer. Amys counteroffer stating that she will buy the minibuses only if they are re-sprayed white is in a form of suspensive condition which has the effect of suspending the fulfilment of the obligation until and unless it has been performed (Lectric Law Library n.d.). This suspensive condition is not a mere request or information because the respraying of white paint in the minibuses is the basis of Amy for buying the said minibuses and as such, it clearly amounts to a counteroffer.

Since the original offer to sale the black Ford Transit Minibuses was not in existence any more, Cheryl could not be forced to sell the said minibuses to Amy. The fact that their communication was through e-mail would not have mattered if they have agreed upon every important element of the contract but since Amy gave a counter-offer as to the subject matter of the contract which was not accepted by Cheryl, there was no contract perfected.

Is there a perfected contract of sale between Cheryl and Mohammed

There is no valid contract between Cheryl and Mohammed.
An offer can be defined as a promise that if accepted, will constitute an agreement. It is only effective after it has been communicated and accepted by both the offeror and the offeree. Acceptance is the final expression of agreeing to the terms laid out by the offeror. In order for it to be effective, it must be communicated. This offer must be differentiated and distinguished from invitation to treat which is the act of eliciting offers from others (Boella  Pannett 1999).

Furthermore, in the case of Partridge v. Crittenden (1968), Partridge advertised the sale of the birds in the newspaper. The RSPCA then filed a case against Partridge for offering of wild birds for sale which was prohibited under the Protection Birds Act 1954. The Supreme Court ruled that Partridge was not liable for offering birds for sale because the advertisement is a mere invitation to treat.

The jurisprudence cited above can be applied in the case at bar. The advertisement posted by Cheryl in the newspaper about the black Ford minibuses constitutes as a mere invitation and not an offer to sale. The act of Mohammed in posting his acceptance to buy the minibuses to Cheryl is the offer that Cheryl must first accept.  Assuming arguendo that the advertisement posted was indeed an offer, there was still no valid contract because the acceptance of Mohammed was not validly communicated to Cheryl. One of the essential requisites of a contract is acceptance of the offer by both parties and the offer posted by Mohammed was not yet accepted by Cheryl, as such, it remains as a mere offer. Therefore, there was no perfected contract between Cheryl and Mohammed because there was no meeting of the minds.